|
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
64 members (accordeur, BWV846, Animisha, benkeys, Anglagard44, brdwyguy, 15 invisible),
2,292
guests, and
409
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752
500 Post Club Member
|
OP
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752 |
Thanks all for your input.
Kees - My only disagreement with you is over the use of the concept "calculated stretch". I don't think we are talking about the same thing, which probably comes from my own ignorance.
Ian and Tunework - Interesting thoughts you have regarding the final temperament of the "tuned" piano. If the temperament varies from piano to piano (assuming a default starting premise of ET or something else) according to the best tuned sound resulting from compromises made to mitigate inharmonicity, then what is the point of attempting to tune Well Temperaments, as is the present fad? I'm talking pianos here, not organs, clavichords or harpsichords, where inharmonicity is either not present or minimal.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 373
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 373 |
Using Cybertuner I set the OTS (Octave Tuning Style) to get the stretch I want (usually 4, but can change based on the piano, size of room, etc.). I'm usually very pleased with the results. But I like my bass octaves to be as musical, clean and powerful as possible, and the cookie-cutter partial match chosen by software might not sound as stellar on D#1-D#2 as it does on the E1-E2 octave, and it could be for a number of reasons. There's a lot of partials floating around when you play a bass octave (ones that you can actually hear), and sometimes making a slight shift in the tuning of the lower note of the octave can cause all that chaos to produce a less busy, sweeter sound. As tuners, we often talk about 6:3, 8:4, 10:5, 12:6, and how we might choose one or the other for a particular range in a particular piano. But to me, that's tuning by numbers. I want to listen to that octave, and if the expected partial match (stretch) for that particular bass octave isn't speaking to me as a pianist and putting a big smile on my face, I believe there is no harm in altering the stretch of that lower note until I'm blown away with how that one particular octave sounds. No math analysis involved - just listening and making musical bass octaves. And yes, this Virgil Smith type of musical octave voodoo might mess up the perfect progression of beat rates in the low bass. As if that matters. Way down there, octaves matter. Not a lot of 3rds, 4ths and 5ths are being played down there, and even if they were, who is going to notice if the smaller intervals are compromised a little in order to give the audience chills when the pianist hits that big bass octave? I rarely hear other technicians talk about this stuff. In the classes I take, and the information I read, there is plenty about setting temperament, stretch, unisons (the most important thing of all is unisons). But to me, a bass octave is like a unison - something that can often be cleaned up and made better from where the ETD calculates it should be.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752
500 Post Club Member
|
OP
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752 |
Mark P.,
Thanks for your thoughts. As a pianist, other than octaves in the very low bass, the only common interval played is the a twelfth (Brahms' chords being an obvious exception.) I agree that the overall sound of an arpeggio, e.g., C1,C2, G2, C3, E3, G3, C4, etc., sends chills up my spine and those of the audience when all the notes really couple. So mathematics aside, if it sounds good, keep it.
However, my piano is played heavily 4-6 hours a day, 7 days a week, 3-4 hours by me. I need to do touch up tuning at least twice a month, and, as an amateur tuner, I prefer a crutch for setting the temperament, if needed, so I can concentrate on the unisons. Maybe after another 20 or 30 tunings, I'll be fast enough to do everything by ear. Right now, cleaning up the unisons takes 45 minutes to an hour.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,028
4000 Post Club Member
|
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,028 |
I use the Sanderson Accu-Tuner IV mostly because I can use it in the Direct Interval mode and store tunings more easily than with any other device. I find the "FAC" calculated tunings to be hit or miss.
If I do a pitch raise first, I recalculate after that and usually get at least somewhat different readings. Does that mean that the piano's inharmonicity has changed? No, I don't think so at all. It means that the readings have changed and that would apply similarly to any other device.
Now, I will have to admit that the Verituner is a different kind of device and for people who rely only on or mostly on ETD calculated tunings, it may be the best there is. The Reyburn software does the best with pitch corrections. Tunelab is the most affordable. They all have their strong points.
Having said that, I have never once used the Sanderson calculated tuning without needing to aurally correct it. I never use what it provides for the wound string Bass. I do that exclusively by ear.
Nevertheless, it remains the only device that I care to use. Once a tuning has been established for a particular piano, it can be relied upon over and above any calculated tuning, bar none. The piano's inharmonicity does NOT change! Only readings and calculations do.
As far as I understand, all devices and software are capable of recording and storing a tuning. If there is any piano that you tune regularly and is a high level client such as an expensive grand or in a performance venue, it behooves you to spend the time necessary at some point to get the most perfect tuning upon it of which you are capable, record it and use that tuning for that instrument thereafter.
The Sanderson devices are the best for that as far as I know. If any of the other devices or software permit similar and multiple piano tuning storage, so much the better. Use the device or software that works best for you.
The whole idea that somehow calculated tunings can be perfect is yet to be realized. For many ordinary tasks, they can, of course, work just fine. For the highest level, "broadcast quality" tunings, it still requires the skill and experience of a seasoned aural tuner to perfect them. Once that is done, however with a stored tuning, it is highly reliable.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,515
2000 Post Club Member
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,515 |
Thanks all for your input.
Kees - My only disagreement with you is over the use of the concept "calculated stretch". I don't think we are talking about the same thing, which probably comes from my own ignorance.
There is no disagreement. If you measure all partials of all notes you can use this information to define a piano tuning. How to do this is however not unique. All pro software allows you to customize how whatever information is measured is used to define a tuning, to accommodate taste. There is no formula (or objective criteria) for "what sounds best". If you like Dirk's formula, great. But IMNSHO the only way to decide is to try different things and see how you like them. I personally like different things under different circumstances. Thanks for letting us know how you as a dedicated piano player feel about Dirk's tuning formula. I am now motivated to try it out. Kees
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752
500 Post Club Member
|
OP
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752 |
I realize this has cropped up on PW before, but this reference - http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5101v2.pdf - is to an article that posits minimal entropy as the the basis for the objective critiria of "what sounds best". While I don't think Dirk's Tuner uses the minimal entropy algorithm pubished in the above referenced article ( it was published in 2012 and Dirk's has been around for some years now), he seems to use something akin to minimal entropy, at least to my ears.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,515
2000 Post Club Member
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,515 |
I realize this has cropped up on PW before, but this reference - http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.5101v2.pdf - is to an article that posits minimal entropy as the the basis for the objective critiria of "what sounds best". While I don't think Dirk's Tuner uses the minimal entropy algorithm pubished in the above referenced article ( it was published in 2012 and Dirk's has been around for some years now), he seems to use something akin to minimal entropy, at least to my ears. I know this paper and think it's a nice approach. However I'm not convinced it produces the "best" tuning in the sense that it "sounds best" for the simple reason that aestetics is not understood. More technical, the definition of the "entropy" of a tuning is not unique. Kees
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,870
2000 Post Club Member
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,870 |
Here on Pianoworld, we've read about at least three systems that claim to define that "perfect" piano tuning/stretch. There's a long thread on the C.H.A.S tuning, Dirk's software, and the OnlyPure approach...
What I have noticed while using multiple software platforms, and communicating with techs trying out different paths, is that our perception for what constitutes "the perfect stretch" is influenced by the particular approach we're currently using... It's almost as if our ears get trained to listen for the results that our approach place on a piano. This also applies to aural tuning that uses the same checks over and over on every piano. Something along the lines of "yup, my checks all work out fine, the piano is as good as it can get"
Where most of the approaches fail is dealing with the more difficult scales to tune - those smaller instruments that just are tough to make musical... Maybe I'll take a look at Dirk's to see how it deals with these!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9,230
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9,230 |
You said something very true Ron, Our tuning approach is modifying our listening.
It can be for the better to some point, but the opposite is also true.
Something really strong happens when tuning with ETD, it is a "surprise" at the end of the tuning.
One listen to the result and is amazed the piano sound so just.
But doing so the loss of control on the tuning during its realization is real, the ear loose the habit to listen "normally" because we have to accept the scheme proposed by the ETD, even if it does not sound natural to the tuner.
The ETD generally tend to quiet the tuner, who is obliged to refrain using as much stretch he would use without the ETD.
This can help some extreme tuners but it also install some limitations in the way the tone is listened to, in my opinion (it is SO different I am surprised that it is considered similar)
Greetings
Last edited by Olek; 03/14/13 08:49 AM.
Professional of the profession. Foo Foo specialist I wish to add some kind and sensitive phrase but nothing comes to mind.!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752
500 Post Club Member
|
OP
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752 |
DoelKees, RonTuner and Olek,
What great insight to the art of tuning. I would like to think that each piano has, at a given moment, a "best possible" tuning. However, as Kees said, aesthetics plays a huge part in our appreciation of the results of a tuning. The paper posits minimal entropy (and uses Shannon entropy equations) as the most pleasing aesthetic, and Kees correctly notes that the definition of the entropy of a tuning is not unique. I still wonder if, playing the devil's advocate, when an aural tuner achieves the most pleasing compromise amongst all the pitches of the piano, he/she has achieved the optimal temperament for that instrument, meaning that any attempt to tune a Well Temperament that is close to ET is doomed to failure, just as attempting to tune a perfect ET across the whole compass of the piano is doomed to produce an unpleasing result?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404 |
Here on Pianoworld, we've read about at least three systems that claim to define that "perfect" piano tuning/stretch. There's a long thread on the C.H.A.S tuning, Dirk's software, and the OnlyPure approach...
What I have noticed while using multiple software platforms, and communicating with techs trying out different paths, is that our perception for what constitutes "the perfect stretch" is influenced by the particular approach we're currently using... It's almost as if our ears get trained to listen for the results that our approach place on a piano. This also applies to aural tuning that uses the same checks over and over on every piano. Something along the lines of "yup, my checks all work out fine, the piano is as good as it can get"
Where most of the approaches fail is dealing with the more difficult scales to tune - those smaller instruments that just are tough to make musical... Maybe I'll take a look at Dirk's to see how it deals with these!
Hi Ron, Thank you for mentioning the model I'm sharing, as you say my tunings are the result of my approach to practical "intonation" and theoretical/numerical issues. You also mention "checks" and throughout my own research (as an aural tuner) I have considered maximum beat-coherence and whole "in tune" resonance as my right and fair targets. I understand what you mean, when you mention "...those smaller instruments that just are tough to make musical...", and I happen to have stated that I have never had particular problems with that. Since I believe you to be sincere, I think it is fair on my part submitting also a sample of my own tuning on a small piano, in fact the smallest Yamaha model. That was one single (my first) tuning on that worn and modest piano which had not been tuned for many years, during my stay in Paris (2010) when I first met Isaac. The site is the customer's (Sebastien Buchholz), he asked me to make a video... "Almost" Chas, dissonances that we can still perceive clearly as dissonant, crispy as in my experience it can be (expecting more hysteresis), together with... what ever else you may notice in there. Hmmm... I did not want myself to appear but... never mind, I apologise for that and for my casual improvisation. http://s814.beta.photobucket.com/user/papafard/media/491_1437.mp4.html?sort=3&o=10Regards, a.c. .
alfredo
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 585
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 585 |
Where most of the approaches fail is dealing with the more difficult scales to tune - those smaller instruments that just are tough to make musical... I want to add to what Ron said. It's not only the poorly scaled instruments - there is technically no ideal stretch for any two pianos! It is academically rewarding to discuss ideal frequency alignment on the modern piano, but as someone once said.. 'The difference between theory and practice is, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.' We are dealing with imperfect bridges, imperfect strings and imperfect scales. This requires different checks and priorities every single time. Also, Mwm, it doesn't matter whether you are tuning an equal temperament or a well temperament, the same principles apply for the best possible tuning. Different temperaments create different partial alignment points, so it changes what is desirable, but there is a best possible point for both. Within a given set of rules, there is always a best point.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752
500 Post Club Member
|
OP
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752 |
Where most of the approaches fail is dealing with the more difficult scales to tune - those smaller instruments that just are tough to make musical... I want to add to what Ron said. It's not only the poorly scaled instruments - there is technically no ideal stretch for any two pianos! It is academically rewarding to discuss ideal frequency alignment on the modern piano, but as someone once said.. 'The difference between theory and practice is, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.' We are dealing with imperfect bridges, imperfect strings and imperfect scales. This requires different checks and priorities every single time. Also, Mwm, it doesn't matter whether you are tuning an equal temperament or a well temperament, the same principles apply for the best possible tuning. Different temperaments create different partial alignment points, so it changes what is desirable, but there is a best possible point for both. Within a given set of rules, there is always a best point. I agree and that is partially my point. I'm not suggesting there is an ideal mathematically derived stretch that can be used for every S&S D ever made. I'm suggesting that the best tuning for a unique piano varies from moment to moment and asking if that is your experience, and it would seem so. But, to go back to temperament, one can tune a organ in quarter comma meantone and not worry about stretch. But, one of the nice things about ET on a piano is that the stretch causes the fifths to beat at fairly consistant speed throughout the compass, instead of doubling per octave with no stretch. How would you tune a piano in quarter comma meantone ( also, why would you want to ) and make it sound "good" ?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 585
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 585 |
Yes, I agree with what you said here.
Tuning a piano in quarter comma meantone is something that is really not done anymore. Seventh comma is the closest thing to meantone that I know of that is used on modern pianos today.
This goes back to something else I posted months back, that inharmonicity dictates ideal tunings for a given instrument. Inharmonicity is responsible for pure thirds not sounding as rewarding and pleasing as on an organ. For this reason, there just isn't the desire to tune something that prioritizes thirds on the modern piano.
You could technically tune quarter comma on a piano, and then use the same octave stretching that is ideal to make the intervals align as used in ET. You couldn't use the same checks to do this however. Different partials and different priorities.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9,230
9000 Post Club Member
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9,230 |
Here on Pianoworld, we've read about at least three systems that claim to define that "perfect" piano tuning/stretch. There's a long thread on the C.H.A.S tuning, Dirk's software, and the OnlyPure approach...
What I have noticed while using multiple software platforms, and communicating with techs trying out different paths, is that our perception for what constitutes "the perfect stretch" is influenced by the particular approach we're currently using... It's almost as if our ears get trained to listen for the results that our approach place on a piano. This also applies to aural tuning that uses the same checks over and over on every piano. Something along the lines of "yup, my checks all work out fine, the piano is as good as it can get"
Where most of the approaches fail is dealing with the more difficult scales to tune - those smaller instruments that just are tough to make musical... Maybe I'll take a look at Dirk's to see how it deals with these!
Hi Ron, Thank you for mentioning the model I'm sharing, as you say my tunings are the result of my approach to practical "intonation" and theoretical/numerical issues. I understand what you mean, when you mention "...those smaller instruments that just are tough to make musical...", and I happen to have stated that I have never had particular problems with that. http://s814.beta.photobucket.com/user/papafard/media/491_1437.mp4.html?sort=3&o=10Regards, a.c. . Shame on you, Alfredo That said, the main result with your tuning approach is that there is always something we can refer to, whatever the scale and piano quality. indeed very agreable. I noticed that something similar happens when the "pure 5th" sheme is tune, but sometime (with high iH probably" the piano tone turn to a cheap organ quality (Bontempi tone) that seems to be added, above the piano harmony. The advantage of CHAS is that it takes in account what the piano proposes .While tending to or using a theoretical scheme, you are not addicted to a particular 10th beat rate, for instance.. the scheme itself inclued enough intervals to find its place (more or less correctly against theory) naturally. But the temp sequence have to be respected (as the method, probably) Greetings
Last edited by Olek; 03/14/13 04:31 PM.
Professional of the profession. Foo Foo specialist I wish to add some kind and sensitive phrase but nothing comes to mind.!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,404 |
Hi Mwm, As regard to theory and practice, I would never confuse a quip that tries to be clever with something serious, ideal-academical studies do have value, when they enable us to better describe our "world". An ideal stretch does exist, throughout the compass, in theory as far theory can go, having to combine prime numbers in a scale, and in practice, every time we aim at harmoniousness and re-find our favorite theoretical references, on every single piano. It does matter whether you consider ET's or a well temperament, in that the "tuning principles" are very different: 12 root of two rules the octave exponentially, Cordier's ET rules a fifth, Stopper's rules a 19th, the Chas model rules the whole 88 compass. When you ask about any WT-expansion you touch one nerve centre of tuning, carefull because... it might be... panic, and you seem to understand that any WT ends up being a quasi-ET, the more you expand it, the closer to a modern ET. So, for any WT, the "best possible" seems to be when you can confuse the WT's theory with ET practice; the same does not apply to the set of rules I refer to. Isaac, Thank you for your comment, I share what you say. But... you know me too well.. believe me.. I'm still ashamed!! Regards, a.c. .
alfredo
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 551
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 551 |
When an aural tuner achieves the most pleasing compromise amongst all the pitches of the piano, he has made some value judgements along the way, according to what pleases him the most. Others would make different judgements, as they have different tastes.
Your analogy with a 'perfect ET' is false - there is no such thing as one single perfect ET. There is the theoretical ET, based upon A=440 and the 12th root of two ratio between semitones, but this is purely theoretical. There are, however, many actual ETs that can be tuned on a (well-scaled) piano, and this is what the aformentioned aural tuner will have tuned on the piano. An actual ET is one where there is an equal ratio between each semitone, and there is a nigh-infinite array of these that can be applied to a piano and it be pleasing.
Last edited by Phil D; 03/14/13 08:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752
500 Post Club Member
|
OP
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752 |
When an aural tuner achieves the most pleasing compromise amongst all the pitches of the piano, he has made some value judgements along the way, according to what pleases him the most. Others would make different judgements, as they have different tastes.
Your analogy with a 'perfect ET' is false - there is no such thing as one single perfect ET. There is the theoretical ET, based upon A=440 and the 12th root of two ratio between semitones, but this is purely theoretical. There are, however, many actual ETs that can be tuned on a (well-scaled) piano, and this is what the aformentioned aural tuner will have tuned on the piano. An actual ET is one where there is an equal ratio between each semitone, and there is a nigh-infinite array of these that can be applied to a piano and it be pleasing. I have re-read the entire thread, and I am unable to find a reference to 'perfect ET'. There was one mention of 'perfect tuning/stretch'. To discuss ET in any meaningful fashion, one must clearly define the ab initio condition. In this case, your definition of the theoretical ET is correct for this discussion. However, your statement regarding 'actual ET' is analagous to stating that a women can be 'partially pregnant'. In my 'observed reality', either a women is pregnant, or a women is not pregnant. I am not aware of a 'nigh-infinite array' of states of being pregnant.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752
500 Post Club Member
|
OP
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752 |
When an aural tuner achieves the most pleasing compromise amongst all the pitches of the piano, he has made some value judgements along the way, according to what pleases him the most. Others would make different judgements, as they have different tastes.
Your analogy with a 'perfect ET' is false - there is no such thing as one single perfect ET. There is the theoretical ET, based upon A=440 and the 12th root of two ratio between semitones, but this is purely theoretical. There are, however, many actual ETs that can be tuned on a (well-scaled) piano, and this is what the aformentioned aural tuner will have tuned on the piano. An actual ET is one where there is an equal ratio between each semitone, and there is a nigh-infinite array of these that can be applied to a piano and it be pleasing. I have re-read the entire thread, and I am unable to find a reference to 'perfect ET'. There was one mention of 'perfect tuning/stretch'. To discuss ET in any meaningful fashion, one must clearly define the ab initio condition. In this case, your definition of the theoretical ET is correct for this discussion. However, your statement regarding 'actual ET' is analagous to stating that a women can be 'partially pregnant'. In my 'observed reality', either a women is pregnant, or a women is not pregnant. I am not aware of a 'nigh-infinite array' of states of being pregnant. I should add that Schrodinger (please excuse the lack of the umlaut) posits that a women can be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time -at least until you observe her condition.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752
500 Post Club Member
|
OP
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 752 |
I stand corrected regarding the use of "perfect ET". I, myself, used the term. I apologize for impugning Phil D's integrity.
|
|
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,403
Posts3,349,419
Members111,636
|
Most Online15,252 Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|